Post #199340 by Thomas on Mon, Nov 21, 2005 3:27 PM

I think for me artifacts such as a carving are interesting mostly for what they say (or seem to say, in my eyes) about the person who chooses to create and/or own and display them. Their interest and value is inseparable from the person with whom they are associated. Of course, there is intrinsic value -- the labor and passion and expressiveness that went into it. And market value ("Wow, that looks like a $1,000 tiki carving!"). And historical value perhaps.

I'm no art theorist so I'll go no further on that as I feel like I'm on shaky ground already. The point I'm trying to make is that I think I could look at one tiki carving at one person's house and say to myself,
"This person seems to be really into traditional polynesian art. That's great!"
Somewhere else, it might be,
"This person seems to be emulating great polynesian pop carvers from decades past. That's great!"
Somewhere else,
"I have a feeling this person is a real partier, and might be a Parrot Head. That's great!"

Sure, I'll identify more with one person's style than with another's, and this might signal to me that I would find more in common with A than with B. But I consider this a subjective "ranking," so to speak, and not an objective assessment of the value of the art. I leave those questions to others. I don't have the analytical toolbox for them, nor the inclination to spend the time required to develop one. Without apologies. I do own and read materials like "The Book of Tiki," for enjoyment. I can't bring myself to call it "research," in all honesty.

For me, the artifacts derive their significance to the extent that they reflect upon the person. The person is the only tiki god in the room. The images are kind of like varied, secondary manifestations of the person.